My Abraham Challenge

[TagliatelliMonster]

Murder's a legal concept regardless of your personal opinion about it. There's either a law defining it and prohibiting it or there isn't.

Regardless of the laws concerning the killing of people...

Morality and law aren't the same thing.
There isn't a law against being an immoral douchebag.

You are free to be a cursing, backstabbing, lying, manipulative prick... as long as this behaviour doesn't involve actual crimes (as defined by law).

And the opposite is also true... there might very well be laws that have no moral implications whatsoever, and which simply exist for other purposes (like economic stability, regulation or whatever).

So, whatever the laws of the land are, I don't think they have a place in a discussion about general morals.

Having said that... to answer the OP:

Abraham had the intention of killing his son because a voice in his head asked him to.
It's rather easy to see what went wrong.

It doesn't matter if the voice was real or a hallucination. It also doesn't matter who the voice was from.

The only proper moral thing to do, would have been to simply refuse killing his son.

That there is even discussion about this, is mindblowing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Abraham believed God would provide a sacrifice. He believed God would stop him and that Issac's life spared.

Irrelevant.

Consider putting that up as a defence in court during a murder trial "ow, but I believed that my son wouldn't actually die..."

Do you think the judge would accept that as a proper defence?
Would you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It would be wrong for you or me to do it...yeah, I agree there....BUT, you always forget the BUT, the reason why God had Abraham do it.

Do you know why?

These mental gymnastics are entirely pointless.
No, there is no "context" where it is ever okay to plunge a knife into the chest of your son - or anyone else for that matter - to 'sacrifice' him to appease some authority.

This is what dogmatic "obedience to a perceived authority" type of morality does to a person.... They need to make up excuses for why certain obviously deeply immoral practices are "okay" in "certain contexts". Acts like slavery, public executions for rather trivial things, genocides, human sacrifice, etc...

Time to wake up and smell the obvious problems with this worldview, I reckon......

 

[danny ski]

The OP assumes that Abraham was going to sacrifice his son. That Gd was testing him, again. It's a compelling argument for those who read the story of Abraham superficially. And while it is true that Abraham obeyed the command, it is also plainly clear that no human sacrifice was ever going to take place. How do we know? Abraham does not question the order, while he questioned the destruction of a city- he even bargained. Yet, he did not even attempt to bargain for his precious son? And earlier, Gd made a promise to him re. Issac. In view of that, does anyone seriously think that Abraham was on his way to sacrifice his son? It is written about Abraham that he followed commandments, precepts and the Law. Is it possible he would've broken the law by committing an act of murder? There are other arguments against this case, but even the plain reading of the text makes it clear that Abraham saw through the test. Unless, that is, he did not trust Gd, and for that, we have no evidence.

 

[Chesterton]

Regardless of the laws concerning the killing of people...

Morality and law aren't the same thing.
There isn't a law against being an immoral douchebag.

You are free to be a cursing, backstabbing, lying, manipulative prick... as long as this behaviour doesn't involve actual crimes (as defined by law).

And the opposite is also true... there might very well be laws that have no moral implications whatsoever, and which simply exist for other purposes (like economic stability, regulation or whatever).

So, whatever the laws of the land are, I don't think they have a place in a discussion about general morals.

Yes I agree. That's why merle may have been wrong to say "murder".

Having said that... to answer the OP:

Abraham had the intention of killing his son because a voice in his head asked him to.
It's rather easy to see what went wrong.

It doesn't matter if the voice was real or a hallucination. It also doesn't matter who the voice was from.

The only proper moral thing to do, would have been to simply refuse killing his son.

That there is even discussion about this, is mindblowing.

Opinion duly noted. But 1) it may be wrong and 2) you may not be entitled to an opinion anyway.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The OP assumes that Abraham was going to sacrifice his son. That Gd was testing him, again. It's a compelling argument for those who read the story of Abraham superficially. And while it is true that Abraham obeyed the command, it is also plainly clear that no human sacrifice was ever going to take place. How do we know? Abraham does not question the order, while he questioned the destruction of a city- he even bargained. Yet, he did not even attempt to bargain for his precious son? And earlier, Gd made a promise to him re. Issac. In view of that, does anyone seriously think that Abraham was on his way to sacrifice his son? It is written about Abraham that he followed commandments, precepts and the Law. Is it possible he would've broken the law by committing an act of murder? There are other arguments against this case, but even the plain reading of the text makes it clear that Abraham saw through the test. Unless, that is, he did not trust Gd, and for that, we have no evidence.

He was only pretending he was going to murder his son? He would have stopped, even if God had not stopped him?

I don't regard pretending to attempt to murder your son as a good idea.

I once heard a preacher joke that Isaac had permanent psychological scars after this incident. Everybody laughed but me. I didn't think his joke was very funny.

 

[danny ski]

He was only pretending he was going to murder his son? He would have stopped, even if God had not stopped him?

I don't regard pretending to attempt to murder your son as a good idea.

I once heard a preacher joke that Isaac had permanent psychological scars after this incident. Everybody laughed but me. I didn't think his joke was very funny.

let me simplify it. It was a game of chicken with a predictable outcome.

 

[-57]

Understood that it was a test of Abraham. But what you forgot to mention is that it was a test to see if Abraham was willing to do something that would be morally wrong for you and I to do. And according to Genesis 22 Abraham demonstrated that he would go to the point where he would do something I consider morally wrong for anybody, he would go to the point where he would kill his son and burn the body of his son on an alter as a sacrifice to God if commanded to do that.

So I wonder if you agree with me that it is morally wrong for anybody to take his son and lay him on an alter, and then take out his knife and kill that son. Is that morally wrong? I say it is.


So the test is if Abraham would do that which would be morally wrong for you and I to do? Why would God test Abraham to see if he would do something that would be morally wrong for you and I to do? If it is morally wrong for you and I to do what Abraham did, why is it not morally wrong for Abraham to do it?

Why would it be morally wrong?
Abraham understood that God made a promise that Isaac would have descendants. If Abraham killed Issac..Abraham understood that God would fulfill His promise...and somehow Isaac would have descendants.

 

[-57]

These mental gymnastics are entirely pointless.
No, there is no "context" where it is ever okay to plunge a knife into the chest of your son - or anyone else for that matter - to 'sacrifice' him to appease some authority.

This is what dogmatic "obedience to a perceived authority" type of morality does to a person.... They need to make up excuses for why certain obviously deeply immoral practices are "okay" in "certain contexts". Acts like slavery, public executions for rather trivial things, genocides, human sacrifice, etc...

Time to wake up and smell the obvious problems with this worldview, I reckon......

Why do many atheist think abortion of unborn babies is OK?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Why would it be morally wrong?

Interesting point. What would be wrong with a little bit of murder? Wait, what?

Are we really going to turn this thread into a discussion of what is wrong with murder? I thought we all would agree murder is wrong.

 

[-57]

Interesting point. What would be wrong with a little bit of murder? Wait, what?

Are we really going to turn this thread into a discussion of what is wrong with murder? I thought we all would agree murder is wrong.

Considering you missed the point of Abraham and Issac....Why is murder wrong?
Will you now argue that Jesus becoming the sacrificial atonement for YOUR sins was immoral?

I asked why is murder immoral..you a humanist think people are only evolved apes.
Wolfs kill deer...is that wrong? Where does your morals come from? After all were only animals.

 

[Grafted In]

Doubtingmerle, you are at an infinate disadvantage discussing Spiritual matters with a carnal mind. It's just that simple. As I said before, the bible is not a novel, nor is it in any other catagory books fall within. The Bible is Spiritual and as such requires the mind of Christ which is given to every believer at salvation.
You can argue your case til the cows come home, but until you become a born again Christian it will continue to baffle you and lead you to false conclusions.
You must be born again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Opinion duly noted. But 1) it may be wrong and 2) you may not be entitled to an opinion anyway.

Yes, that is my opinion on the matter.

And I can honestly state that that opinion is morally superior to the opposite.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

let me simplify it. It was a game of chicken with a predictable outcome.

The game of chicken is unethical/immoral. Especially if the person being put at risque is not the one who actually plays the game. Like Russian Roulette, but with the gun pointed at someone else instead of your own head.

A person who "forces" someone into playing such a game, is unethical/immoral.

In my opinion, you just made it worse.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why would it be morally wrong?
Abraham understood that God made a promise that Isaac would have descendants. If Abraham killed Issac..Abraham understood that God would fulfill His promise...and somehow Isaac would have descendants.

God: "Hey, kill your son for me"
Abraham: "but...he's my son"
God: "I told you you would have descendants... so if not him, you'll get other children"
Abraham: "ow, okay then... Hey Isaac, come here for a second, I want to show you something...."


So, how is this better again?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why do many atheist think abortion of unborn babies is OK?

Don't change the topic.

btw: also extremely dishonest of you to take that route. You know perfectly well that "pro-choices" make a distinction between humans that are born versus the unborn. And even in the "unborn" category, it's not all the same. I, for example, don't know any "pro-choicers" who would say that an 8-month pregnancy is the equivalent of a 2-week pregnancy.

So, in other words, whatever disagreement you might have with pro-choices concerning the unborn, it is irrelevant here in a discussion about a human sacrifice of a human that is several years old already.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Will you now argue that Jesus becoming the sacrificial atonement for YOUR sins was immoral?

Eum..... YES!

Conceptually off course, since obviously I don't believe such a thing ever happened.
But yeah, I consider that idea to be completely and utterly immoral.

I asked why is murder immoral..you a humanist think people are only evolved apes.

If "moral" actions are those actions that benefit the overall well-being of sentient beings, then taking the life of such a being with no justifiable reason (= what murder is), is certainly the opposite. ie, immoral.

If you don't agree that "moral" actions are actions that benefit the overall well-being of sentient beings, then I don't what you are talking about, when you speak about "morality".

Wolfs kill deer...is that wrong?

No.

Where does your morals come from?

From a realisation that my actions have a potential impact on other people and that if we are going to share space together in a cooperative society, we have to recognise that impact in order for the society to be able to function properly.

After all were only animals.

Which is not a problem or even relevant.

 

[danny ski]

The game of chicken is unethical/immoral. Especially if the person being put at risque is not the one who actually plays the game. Like Russian Roulette, but with the gun pointed at someone else instead of your own head.

A person who "forces" someone into playing such a game, is unethical/immoral.

In my opinion, you just made it worse.

LOL! A game of chicken may be questionable. But. A game of chicken where the outcome is established beforehand is certainly not.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The Bible is Spiritual and as such requires the mind of Christ which is given to every believer at salvation.
You can argue your case til the cows come home, but until you become a born again Christian it will continue to baffle you and lead you to false conclusions.
You must be born again.

Which conclusion exactly did I come to that was false? It seemed to me that I was just saying what Genesis 22 said. If I come to the "true conclusion" about Genesis 22 what will that conclusion be?

It doesn't make sense to me for you to argue that others are wrong, if you yourself are not willing to give your interpretation.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Where does your morals come from?

From my sense of right and wrong, and by thinking about the consequences of actions.

Where do your morals come from? Let me guess. You subscribe to the idea that might makes right, so the mightiest being in the universe makes the rules, and whatever he decides is "moral". Is that where your morals come from?

In that case, what happens if the most powerful being in the universe asks you to murder your children on an alter as a sacrifice to him. Is that then moral? I think not.